In today’s day and age, in a world that is shaken by movements all over the world (such as #MeToo) that started conversations about what was once unspoken of and as a result is shifting slowly but hopefully steadily towards equality (between the sexes, the ethnicities, for the LGBTQ+ community), a person’s ethics are more paid attention to. With actors, entertainers, musicians and other artists under scrutiny for misconduct, the age-old question -should we separate the art from the artist- has resurfaced and is urgently becoming relevant. From sexual assault to inappropriate and hateful behaviour, do the “problematic” actions of these artists mean we can -or rather we should- no longer appreciate their art? Even if you have decided to go through with boycotting the work of artists you judge unworthy, the following question remains unanswered: can you separate Art from the Artist? Is it in your ability to do so? Should you do it?
Some agree with French philosopher Roland Barthes’ argument that consideration of an author’s morality is an essential element of critiquing their work, as many think Art is a manifestation of the artist. Moral questions are inevitable in artistic critique, but perhaps audiences should reflect on the moral questions raised by the piece itself when evaluating a work, rather than by the misconduct of its creator. “Do I judge the film based off the filmmaker’s personal actions? No,” film critic Candice Frederick told IndieWire, “Do I judge the filmmaker outside the film? Absolutely."
It would be unfair to the Art to be considered somehow tainted by association with a miscreant, and artists are well aware that by their behaviour they may put their work in jeopardy. In 2O18, when allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour were swirling around photographer Nicholas Nixon, he asked that the ICA Boston take down their exhibition of his work early stating: “I believe it is impossible for these photographs to be viewed on their own merits any longer.”
As the work of art is born and unleashed into the world, shouldn’t be its own entity? According to Wimsatt and Beardsley, a poem does not belong to its author but rather "is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it. The poem belongs to the public.” Therefore, shouldn’t the piece of art have value in its own right regardless of what life its author led, whetherit was pious or scandalous and even if they committed a criminal offence against someone?
Art shouldn’t be shunned due to the bad behaviour of an artist. Shunning and abhorring Art based on the actions of the creators is a black and white categorization, an oversimplified dualist understanding of a more complex human being. It would be an unrealistic and Manichean take on things.
Art is created, in many (perhaps most) cases despite the personal faults and fallibilities of the artist and it exceeds their existence. Art is well beyond and above the flaws of the artists and the personal tastes of individuals who feel it is within their rights to evaluate the work and decide whether it should be exhibited or not. As the world goes on, times change, societies move forward, it all fades away while the Art stands, as a witness of a cultural identity, of principles and values we once had at a precise moment and place.
Some people argue that appreciating the work of individuals who demonstrate “problematic” behaviour encourages those foul acts. But if we were to boycott the creative work of every artist who has ever been a predatory creep in their private life, we would be doing the art world a disfavor? Where would you draw the line?
In his essay “My Woody Allen Problem,” The New York Times film critic A.O. Scott says that although Allen’s behaviours may be odious, his works cannot be scrubbed from the artistic canon because they are “a part of the common artistic record, which is another way of saying that they inform the memories and experiences of a great many people.”
Many artistic masters that are still praised for their genius and talent have behaved in socially frowned upon - and often downright immoral - ways. Wagner was very implicated with the third Reich and was anti-Semite. Pablo Picasso flagrantly and notoriously mistreated women. Influential Baroque painter Caravaggio had a reputation as a violent bully and once killed a man. Edgar Allan Poe married his 13-year- old cousin. Voltaire and H.P. Lovecraft were racists. Even though they are dead therefore, they won’t profit from our consuming their work, they are not immune to our judgement and criticism. Hannah Gadsby doesn’t fail to deliver in her Netflix special Nanette, an ironic and witty appraisal on Pablo Picasso, the “greatest artist of the 20th century” who said as she quotes "each time I leave a woman I should brun her."
But should controversial artists’ works be ripped from library shelves and gallery walls? Should their works be burned in dumpster fires along with their cultural importance? We should of course take a stand against their misconduct as a society but it would be ignorant and idiotic to limit the Art to the artist and the artist to these actions that I do not argue are reprehensible. Should you start boycotting films, books, or art from problematic creators? Should you loath the songs of Chris Brown or Kanye West? Should you despise Chuck Close’s work? Should you be indignant when stumbling upon films from Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Johnny Depp or Woody Allen?
It pains me to know that some of the artists that I once admired turned out to be predators and have done inexcusable and incorrigible harm to others, and what they did I do condemn but unfortunately, instinctively I believe in the idea that Art and the artist are separate in terms of the artist’s intentions not necessarily being the entirety of the work itself. I still like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, I can’t help but be fond of Allen’s movie Midnight in Paris, I will most likely dance to a Chris Brown and Lil Dicky’s Freaky Friday.
Contradictorily, I do think that the financial, social and power structure ties between an artist and his work are real: by consuming the product of artists that are for example domestic abusers or predators or racists, I do feel complicit, and feel like I am promoting the value system of the offender. By doing so, I am supporting them and sending the message that “it is okay to behave in an odious manner as long as your work is pleasant”. Let’s not forget that it is the public’s support that maintains the social power of the person and enables them to still work within the industry, it is that very power and support that allowed them to commit sexual harassment and coercion. I used to look at some of my favourite artists’ work and be in awe in front of such talent and beauty, nowadays I can’t help but think of how the encounter between them and the model or the rest of the crew went, how was the interaction between them?
So how can we sort the things that are in a morally grey area? How can we see through the fog what is right and what is wrong? Ultimately, I think that it all comes down to perspective and context. What’s the offense, when was it committed and what is the context of the Art to the people around them? Who would suffer if the offender’s work remains accessible and vice versa? Should we take into account that in the time of the artist his thoughts and opinions were very common then but that now we perceive them as wrong? What about the artists in our present that are accused of many faults? This should be a personal judgement.
In my point of view, however contradictory it may be, I still believe that in most cases, we would benefit from letting all Art be a part of our cultural heritage, no matter the artist. I agree with feminist scholar Camille Paglia who, when asked about this relevant topic, said to the New York Times, “The artist as a person should certainly be subject to rebuke, censure or penalty for unacceptable decisions in the social realm, but art, even when it addresses political issues, occupies an abstract realm beyond society.”
Although, perhaps another question is raised amid the current flood of sexual harassment allegations in the arts and entertainment industries: do you see this moment as a turning point for the industry, a chance to at least attempt to better it? Whether you are a fervent believer that Art and artist are strongly tied and are pro-boycotts, or a person that sees Art and artist as two separate entities, we should all support the movements and the groups that are working hard to dismantle the structure of injustice and prejudice.
Salma Farghaly